- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:48:02 -0800
- To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>, Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote: > If we decide that background-transform is valuable, then I think we'll have a very hard > time rejecting background-opacity (which I believe we've done in the past). Given that adding opacity to an image is something pretty useful in general (I can definitely see the use in border-image, for example), I don't think that background-opacity has much promise. That's definitely something that should be generalized if we accept it. > However, it's still not obvious to me that transforms to image applied via either > @image rules or a functional syntax would affect the orientation of the > background tiling grid, whereas background-transform would, I think. If we use Sylvain's idea of a more general @image rule that could take these properties, then transform-aware tiling can be applied there. It would then be an image with definite dimensions but infinite paint, and could be used with background-repeat:no-repeat just fine (or background-repeat:extend, if we keep the current behavior where no-repeat chops any paint outside the image box). That seems to solve the tiling-grid problem fairly elegantly, letting us keep any magic behavior out of the background-repeat property. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 03:48:55 UTC